Results of the 1997-98 Library Materials Budget Survey of the ALCTS/CMDS/Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group

January 8, 1999

Compiled by
Robert G. Sewell
Associate University Librarian
Collection Development and Management
Rutgers University
rgsewell@rci.rutgers.edu

Narative Summary

The results of the 1997/98 Library Materials Budget Survey of the membership of the ALA/ALCTS/CMDS Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group is being reported herein. There was a lower response rate of 63% than usual. It is normally over 80%.

The survey results reflect twenty-nine responses out of a possible forty-six libraries in the discussion group. There are not, however, twenty-nine responses to each question because some questions were left blank, some results were reported as NA (data not available), or in some cases the response did not make sense to me, in which case the response is represented as �?�. In order to improve accuracy, I have calculated the averages slightly differently this year, resulting in some changes in the historical average data on the spreadsheet.

Survey Results

1. Average base materials budget allocation in 1996/97 was $6,567,048 and in 1997/98 it is $7,022,914. Yale's 1997/98 base is $15,251,000!

2. 1997/98 increases or Decreases to the base:

a. The increase in base budgets for the group as a whole (twenty-seven useable responses) from 1996/97 to 1997/98 was 6.5%. However, the average based on the increases reported for individual libraries (twenty-eight responses) in 1997/98 is 4.6%.

b. The highest increases are 13.7% (Arizona State), 13.0% (Library of Congress), 12.5% (NYU) and 10.0% (Yale).

c. Nine libraries received increases between 5-8%.

d. Six libraries reported increases ranging between 1.0%-4.3%.

e. Six libraries reported no increases, one of which, Rutgers, has had no increases or actual decreases for eight straight years.

f. Virginia and Smithsonian reported decreases of 2.0% and 2.2% respectively.

3. One-time funds, i.e., one year supplements, continue to be a major factor in materials budget allocations. In 1992/93 out of thirty-eight reporting, only eight reported one-time funds, and the average amount for these eight was $166,003. In 1997/98, fifteen out of twenty-one responses reported one-time funds, with the average amount being $455,202. This astonishing trend represents a lack of long-term commitment to library budgets making long-range planning for collections difficult. In the current year, Florida received one-time funding of $2,025,537, with the possibility of this becoming permanent if the Florida economy remains strong. Berkeley has $940,000; Hawaii, still digging out from the 1995/96 disaster, has $900,000; and Rutgers has $534,000 in one-time funding which is primarily being used to avoid another year of cancellations during a year of library long-range planning.

4. Twenty-three reported specific amounts of endowed funds spent in 1996/97, but the reporting of endowed funds remains a problematic. Endowed funds for the large private universities are the major source of funding, often in the base allocations. For others, primarily state institutions endowed and gift funds are bundled together as �non-state funds,� not calculated in the base. Figures are provided in the spreadsheet.

5. Five reported supporting bibliographic utilities (such as OCLC and RLIN) out of their materials budget in 1996/97, in amounts ranging from $5,615(British Columbia) to $335,000 (Stanford).

6. Sixteen reported binding expenditures in 1996/97 from the materials budget ranging from $25,000(Cornell) to $556,222(Columbia), with the average expenditure among these sixteen of $273,7762. Fourteen reported that binding was not covered by the materials budget.

7. Twelve included Center for Research Libraries membership in their materials budget. One reported not being a member of C.R.L. Eleven reported paying other memberships, such as ARL and RLG, from their materials budget, average $49,571.

8. Eight reported using the materials budget for interlibrary loan costs, with the average amount of $37,813 for the eight. Michigan State spent the most ($64,00). Nine reported subsidizing document delivery, with British Columbia spending as much as $70,000, with the average being $31,927.

9. Allocations for Electronic Resources:

a. Among the thirty-six libraries reporting in this category in 1996/97, the average amount spent for electronic resources was $508,988 and the average percent of the total materials budget for this category was 6.7%, the same as the previous year. States such as California, Ohio, and Georgia have state consortia that provide the majority of funding for electronic resources.

b. Among the fourteen that reported 1997/98 allocations for electronic resources, the average amount is $572,982, a 12.6% increase for the group over the average spent in the previous year. Arizona State, British Columbia, Michigan, Stanford, and Toronto all will spend over $1,000,000 of electronic resources this year. Many librariers do not allocate for electronic resources, but track expenditures for them after the fact.

c. New questions related to amounts spent for networked resources and for materials purchased on perpetual leases and �temporary� licenses proved difficult to answer. Some did, but this small amount of information has not yet been analyzed.

d. British Columbia, Berkeley, Rutgers reported using some materials budget funds for hardware (public workstations) and software; Cornell and Toronto purchase some software only. All others did not use materials budget funds for these types of purchases.

10. Balance between Serials and Monographs:

There was virtually no changes in average balance between serials and monographs from 1995/96 to 1996/97: 62.9%/36.2% and 62.2% and 35.1% respectively. The problem with reporting in this category remains: some report the balance of serials and monographs alone, i.e., totaling 100%, whereas others report the percentages for serials and monographs as a part of the overall budget total in other categories such as memberships, binding, etc. and, as a result, the s/m percentages do not equal 100%.

11. Serials Cancellations:

a. In 1996/97 twenty-six reported serials were canceled. Twenty-two of those reported specific number of titles canceled, the average being 541. Twenty-one report the average amount saved through cancellation, the average being $131,859. Berkeley canceled the most - 4,501.

b. In 1997/98 fifteen plan to cancel serials. Of these, ten were targeting an average of $178,336 in cancellations and six reported the numbers being canceled, the average being 372 titles. Berkeley will cancel $575,975 worth; and Washington - $451,800 and 1,174 titles.

12. Twenty-seven reported on approval plans. Eight will expand approval plans and two will decrease them and the others will not change in 1997/98. Among six reporting dollar amounts, the average increase will be $161,693. No figures were given for decreases. This is a major change from the previous year, when six reported decreases, and the average change (+/-) was -$10,518.

13. Of the twenty-nine responding, three reported spending the materials budget on technical processing: Berkeley (PromptCat), Toronto, and Virginia. No amounts were specified.